Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Cycle Consistency as Reward: Learning Image-Text Alignment without Human Preferences

About

Measuring alignment between language and vision is a fundamental challenge, especially as multimodal data becomes increasingly detailed and complex. Existing methods often rely on collecting human or AI preferences, which can be costly and time-intensive. We propose an alternative approach that leverages cycle consistency as a supervisory signal. Given an image and generated text, we map the text back to image space using a text-to-image model and compute the similarity between the original image and its reconstruction. Analogously, for text-to-image generation, we measure the textual similarity between an input caption and its reconstruction through the cycle. We use the cycle consistency score to rank candidates and construct a preference dataset of 866K comparison pairs. The reward model trained on our dataset, CycleReward, outperforms state-of-the-art alignment metrics on detailed captioning, with superior inference-time scalability when used as a verifier for Best-of-N sampling, while maintaining speed and differentiability. Furthermore, performing DPO and Diffusion DPO using our dataset enhances performance across a wide range of vision-language tasks and text-to-image generation. Our dataset, model, and code are publicly released at https://cyclereward.github.io.

Hyojin Bahng, Caroline Chan, Fredo Durand, Phillip Isola• 2025

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Hallucination EvaluationAMBER--
267
Hallucination EvaluationMMHal
Score3.95
62
Image-to-Text Hallucination EvaluationCOCO
CHAIRs Score0.13
18
Image+Text-to-Text Hallucination EvaluationMMHal-Bench
BERT Score77.7
18
Preference AssessmentPickaPic general preference assessment (real-user interaction)
Assessment Accuracy62.6
18
Preference AssessmentPreferImg MP 1.0 (seen)
Assessment Accuracy50.8
18
Preference AssessmentPreferImg SP 1.0 (unseen)
Assessment Accuracy50
18
Preference AssessmentPreferImg MP 1.0 (unseen)
Assessment Accuracy56
18
Preference AssessmentPreferImg SP 1.0 (seen)
Assessment Accuracy48
18
Image CaptioningCAPability
Average Score70.59
12
Showing 10 of 13 rows

Other info

Follow for update